Is your footprint above or below average? And do you care?

[Cam77]

Is your carbon footprint above or below the national average - and if it’s above do you feel bad about it? There are some good calculators online which quiz you on every aspect of you lifestyle. For what it’s worth I’m below average on most metrics - food consumption, energy usage (average sized home with good rating), don’t drive (work from home), only one kid, etc. However, I do fly a fair bit including one long haul every couple of years (12 hour return flight to visit family) - and that alone bumps me right back up to around the national average. I feel kind of bad about it, but there you go.

But people who choose to have dogs rather than children have a smaller carbon footprint than people who have children.

I don't have children because I worry about the state of the planet and other reasons, but I do like to have something small to love and loves me back.

No ones said anything about getting rid of children who already exist, but if you don't have any and you're going to choose between the two,
A dog is a better choice.

We have enough issues with abandoned dogs without people giving them up because they're worried about their carbon footprint.

I eat a lot of lamb This is a good idea. The most ethically produced meat in this country.

Does anyone have any information on which meat and dairy is the best to eat if you are going to eat meat but still want to try and be eating the least worst thing..

Beef is the worst followed by lamb. Beef from Brazil is a particular issue due to the widespread destruction of the rainforest to provide grazing land.

The best meat to eat is chicken

I am not talking about people who have a dog instead of children, but making the point that dogs do have a decent carbon footprint and it is something we all need to consider. Like flying, or having babies.

If I was a betting woman, I would put money on the vast majority of households where there are dogs, also having at least one adult who has had children as well. In that case, they are not doing it instead of, but in addition.

Also, although huge families aren't good for the planet, we do need some babies being born to keep public services going. Fewer babies is better, but we do need some babies being born. We are already at below replacement birth levels in the UK, which I think could be a good thing tbh, but we still need there to be a (hopefully smaller) population of younger people in the future, unless we plan to live off no food, no electricity or running water, no hospitals, police etc.

I think most people would accept that we need some humans to be born. I do not think you can really say the same for pet dogs.

Re abandoned dogs, YY. A huge problem. I honestly think the world would be a lot better off in terms of CC, pollution and also in terms of quality of life for dogs, if people could only adopt rescue dogs and not buy from breeders. But I know I am quite extreme on my views on this.

Beef is the worst followed by lamb. Really? Chicken?

I agree with what you're saying beatrice especially about the rescue dogs.

However from what I can see from my peer group I have a suspicion that a lot more babies would be born if it wasn't for dogs.

I have a suspicion that a lot more babies would be born if it wasn't for dogs.

Is it because they're always in the room when couples want to dtd and it's too awkward ?

Horehound
@Devereux1 oh ffs you have consistently picked them up

I asked kjhkj a basic question about how they thought all the things they were telling everyone to do, would help. Pretty basic stuff. Climate change Lesson Number 1. They said they had no idea about anything behind their claim, but persisted in making their claim. First that has been described as attacking, now it's consistently picking them up. That's just laughable.

kjhkj also made a false claim about me here. I have asked them twice why they did so, and they don't even have the decency to answer that either!

Beef is the worst followed by lamb.

Oh dear, but interesting. Is that purely for environmental reasons? I assumed lamb was the most ethical like derva said, but maybe that's just from an animal welfare p.o.v and not environmentally? I find it hard to eat chicken.

I suspect I'm below as I don't have children

kjhkj also made a false claim about me here. I have asked them twice why they did so, and they don't even have the decency to answer that either!

I told you I'm out. I'm not engaging with someone who simply wants to argue for the sport.

Is that purely for environmental reasons?

Cows and sheep are ruminants. They produce large amounts of methane. Goats and deer are also ruminants (but we don't tend to eat much meat from them in this country)

kjhkj
kjhkj also made a false claim about me here. I have asked them twice why they did so, and they don't even have the decency to answer that either!

I told you I'm out. I'm not engaging with someone who simply wants to argue for the sport.

Fair enough. How about engaging with me then? Why did you call me a climate denier? Why can't you at least have the decency to say, "Yeah, you didn't say that at all, I just presumed it, I was wrong, sorry about that."

I'm not engaging with you.

Animal welfare and carbon emissions and two separate things, but both important.

Beef is worst for carbon emissions, lamb is a close second though there may be some benefits to upland carbon sinks through sheep grazing thoigh not enough to outweigh the overall carbon from the lamb farming.

Chicken is better than both in terms of carbon.

It is possible to google this, it doesn't need the sniping and arguement that appears to be taking over the thread.

I'm not engaging with you.

Well, if you're not going to apologise for your lie, just stop posting to me then!

Mine was slightly above average (unclear if it's current UK average or Gov't target as it mentions both), mostly on car travel it seems. I just don't have any other option at the moment - last year on maternity leave I walked to school and back twice a day but now I have a military-precision timetable of dropoffs and pickups to get me to work on time. I travel very few miles but it takes me a while due to traffic.

I think it goes to show that societal change is pivotal - somehow we have to find a new way of working and living that gives the flexibility to avoid these situations.

I cannot understand anyone saying they do not care, or will start caring when activists stop travelling or having families - firstly why would that make you start caring, and secondly many do not as shown by this thread!

Ok kjhkj thank you. I do find diet a difficult one for the reasons I said. I suppose I could try and reduce the amount of lamb that I eat but not cut it out altogether.

Well someone must want lamb because our prices have shot up last year and the beginning of this one.

I don't think enough people realise the impact on the environment of buying red meat. People buy it because its nice to eat.

This is a profoundly depressing thread. To all of you saying China China - the footprint of a Chinese person's LIFESTYLE is a tiny fraction of yours. China's footprint (which, per capita, is STILL way lower than ours) is mostly taken up by MAKING STUFF FOR US.

Also, to the people saying 'I won't do anything until climate activists stop having kids/travelling COMPLETELY', just remember that if they did you'd say they were weird and ridiculous and dismiss them for that.

I struggle with these calculators tho. Seems to me that kids should come under their parents' footprint until 18 or 21.

I think one of the things people can do, if not completely cutting some things out is to reduce them right down. Have quality meat rarely rather than cheap meat daily. We had roast beef for Christmas dinner as a treat as we all like it, but that'll probably be it for several months.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46459714

People buy it because its nice to eat
And health wise it's good for me. Especially given i have a small list of things i actually like to eat.
I'm super picky on taste and texture. Always have been and team that with a generally small appetite and I gotta take the good where I can.

Which reminds me, gotta get dp onto his mate to get us another half lamb straight from the farmers gate.

@Fluandseptember

Seems to me that kids should come under their parents' footprint until 18 or 21.

Ok. So, how about the fact that a single, childless westerner, on average, does more damage than many times that of a person in some parts of Africa? Lifestyle counts. Otherwise why would there be this huge disparity. And the big concerns re population growth in the imminent future also come from that area.

My point being that, although population is a big issue, it is far from the only issue. People, (especially some people who don't have children but, for example, don't want to reduce their meat consumption or long haul beach holidays), like to over simplify and say "if you have children you have no right to judge me". It's a common mantra on CC threads here and elsewhere. I get it. It's a defense and it hurts the other party, so people feel as if they win the argument with this.

But, for anyone who knows much on the subject, it is much, much more complex.